xymphora

Monday, January 21, 2019

"George Soros, a sworn enemy of the present right-populist coalition
government in Rome, has been on something of a mission to put Italy
under austerity, with Italian media reporting on such efforts going back
to at least 2011. Last October, in an explosive interview for Italian
TV, former Prime Minister Mario Monti revealed
that Soros had called him at the height of the European sovereign debt
crisis eight years ago, urging Italy to accept ‘assistance’ from the IMF
to dig out from under its debt problem. Monti refused at the time,
saying following Soros’ advice would have turned Italy into another
Greece.
On November 26, 2018, in a meeting in Brussels with Timmermans,
along with a representative of EC President Jean-Claude Juncker, Soros
was again assumed to have brought up the debt issue, with Italian media speculating heavily
regarding the vague comments of an EC spokesperson, who said only that
they “cannot confirm or deny whether Italy’s budget was discussed.”
Meanwhile, Sputnik Italia contributor Alessio Trovato writes, Soros’ Open Society Foundations has been cutting paychecks “to a considerable number of journalists and influencers
whom (surprise) constantly refer to him as a ‘benefactor’ and
‘spontaneously’ support all of his campaigns, including his support
for migration, mondialism, Russophobia and colour revolutions.”
A big part of the problem, according to Trovato, is that the
mainstream media continues to completely ignore Soros’ activities, or
to report on them only with reluctance, even as the billionaire seeks
to interfere in democratic processes and the internal affairs
of sovereign nations."

"The Unbelievable Story Of The Plot Against George Soros"(Grassegger, at BuzzFeed). Whatcha doin' from the usual (((nice folks))) who will, of course, scream bitterly about the 'anti-Semitism' they created. This leaves unsaid the fact that Soros, with his currency manipulations, has probably caused more human suffering than any other living person.

"The Tale of “Count” Soros and the Young Latvian State he Destroyed" (Berger):

"Igors Meija, the chairman of the board of directors of Latvia’s construction company Constructus LV, in one of his recent speeches has
quite colorfully described the true nature of the “selfless donations”
that George Soros is know of making, ruining Latvia and its economy
through those. In particular, the CEO revealed that Soros would often
brag that he spent 90 million dollars on “supporting democracy” in
Latvia. Yet if one is to take a closer look at the profits Soros and the
powerful members of his closed club like the Rothschilds reaped from
these investments, one can safely state that they’ve made a lot of money
by donating them. Among the most noticeable assets that Soros and other
oligarchs own is the Lativian external debt that has recently reached
11 billion dollars due to machinations that Soros pulled off in
cooperation with the bribed Latvian officials. This amounts to 6,515
thousands dollars that each Latvian resident has to pay, or 12,509
dollars taken from each economically active person. Even to service this
debt Latvian tax payers have to give away 1.1 million dollars a day of
their hard-earned cash! Just three months of debt servicing amounts to
the 90 million dollars Soros spent on “promoting democracy“ in Latvia!
One can admit that Soros and the likes of him know how to get more than
impressive ROI rates.

If nothing changes in
the foreseeable future and the dire demographic situation in Latvia
won’t improve, each economically active resident of Latvia will have to
pay 23,882 dollars to the kind philanthropists that ruined their country
by 2030. Igors Meija complains that on top of this all, Soros managed
to “liberalize” local financial sector by eliminating all Latvian
competitors from it, handing over the money of the ruined Latvian banks,
such as Latvijas Krājbanka, Trasta komercbanka, ABLV, to overseas debt
holders.

Igors Meija is
convinced that this “philanthropist” and his “club” won’t stop
carnivorous practices, especially once they’ve realized that the
obedient Latvian bureaucracy will do anything they demand it to do in a
bid to stay in power and profit from the local population. The CEO is
convinced that Latvia is reminiscent of America in post-Columbian era.
Once the “pale-faced do-gooders” landed on the Latvian shores and
offered glass mirrors and beads to the local population in exchange for
diamonds and gold, Latvians have had a hard time trying to make their
both ends meet.

Similar cases of debt
enslavement by Soros and the likes of him can be found in various
countries all across the world, where Soros carries on its
“philanthropic activities”.

However, Western
financial and political elites have been receiving significant dividends
from defending George Soros on a multitude of MSM platforms that they
own, deliberately hiding the true nature of this soulless plutocrat. Of
course, among such media outlets one can find the Guardian, the New York Times and the Financial Times on
top on a number of other publications, that have already lost all
credibility with the Western public due to the extensive amount of shill
work they do for the Western financial elites."

Marshall has settled on a theoretical conspiracy theory, based entirely on suppositions and notably without any proven factual background, that Trump is under Putin's sway as Putin controlled planning permissions needed to build the Trump-branded hotel planned for Moscow, negotiations for which went on during the campaign, but which fell through: "The Hotel Deal Is Really All That Matters". This is pathetic even by Marshall's standards. As has been pointed out by many, not only have the sanctions not been lifted, they have been increased, as has the general anti-Russian slant of the entire American government on many, many fronts.

empotywheel has some kind of argument based on the idea that Mueller had to refute the BuzzFeed story in order to preserve whatever shaky credibility (!) Cohen has as a future witness: "Peter Carr Speaks".

It is difficult not to notice that Trump's big failure throughout was having Khazars as business partners.

"A wishy washy tweet from the Committee to Protect Journalists re:
Marzieh Hashemi. No demand. No outrage. No explanation of the
constitutional abuse of “material witness” designation. Just a lame
expression of “concern.” #FreeMarziehHashemi#MarziehHashemi@pressfreedom"

Sunday, January 20, 2019

"Today, almost 17 years after the war began, two years after
Nicholson took the reins, one year after Trump articulated his new plan,
victory in any traditional sense is nowhere in sight. Despite spending around $900 billion in Afghanistan, as the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction determined earlier
this year, “between 2001 and 2017, U.S. government efforts to stabilize
insecure and contested areas in Afghanistan mostly failed.” According
to a July 30, 2018, report by that same inspector general, the Taliban
was by then contesting control of or controlled about 44% of that country, while Afghan government control and influence over districts had declined by about 16% since Nicholson’s predecessor, General John Campbell, was in command.
And that was before, last month, the Taliban launched a large-scale
attack on a provincial capital, Ghazni, a strategically important city,
and held it for five days, while taking control
of much of the province itself. Finally driven from the city, the
Taliban promptly overran a military base in Baghlan Province during its
withdrawal. And that was just one day after taking another Afghan
military base. In fact, for the previous two months, the Taliban had overrun government
checkpoints and outposts on a near-daily basis. And keep in mind that
the Taliban is now only a fraction of the story. The U.S. set out to
defeat it and al-Qaeda in 2001. Today, Washington faces exponentially more terror groups in
Afghanistan -- 21 in all, including an imported franchise from the Iraq
War front, ISIS, that grew larger during Nicholson’s tenure.
Given this seemingly dismal state of affairs, you might wonder what happened to Nicholson. Was he cashiered? Fired, Apprentice-style?
Quietly ushered out of Afghanistan in disgrace? Hardly. Like the 15
U.S. commanders who preceded him, the four-star general simply rotated
out and, at his final press conference from the war zone late last month, was nothing if not upbeat.

“I believe the South Asia Strategy is the right approach. And now we
see that approach delivering progress on reconciliation that we had not
seen previously,” he announced. “We've also seen a clear progression in
the Taliban's public statements, from their 14 February letter to the
American people to the recent Eid al-Adha message, where [Taliban
leader] Emir Hibatullah acknowledged for the first time that
negotiations will, quote, ‘ensure an end to the war,’ end quote.”

In the event that you missed those statements from a chastened
Taliban on the threshold of begging for peace, let me quote from the
opening of the latter missive, issued late last month:

“This year Eid­ al­-Adha approaches us as our Jihadi struggle
against the American occupation is on the threshold of victory due to
the help of Allah Almighty. The infidel invading forces have lost all
will of combat, their strategy has failed, advanced technology and
military equipment rendered useless, [the] sedition and
corruption­-sowing group defeated, and the arrogant American generals
have been compelled to bow to the Jihadic greatness of the Afghan
nation.”

And those conciliatory statements of peace and reconciliation touted
by Nicholson? The Taliban says that in order to end “this long war” the
“lone option is to end the occupation of Afghanistan and nothing more.”
In June, the 17th American
nominated to take command of the war, Lieutenant General Scott Miller,
appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee where Elizabeth
Warren (D-MA) grilled him on what he would do differently in order to
bring the conflict to a conclusion. “I cannot guarantee you a timeline
or an end date,” was Miller’s confident reply.
Did the senators then send him packing? Hardly. He was, in fact,
easily confirmed and starts work this month. Nor is there any chance
Congress will use its power of the purse to end the war. The 2019 budget
request for U.S. operations in Afghanistan -- topping out at $46.3 billion -- will certainly be approved."

I've been over this before, but if you keep fighting wars for somebody else's purposes, you can't ever 'win', as you can never elucidate what 'winning' would look like.

"US erodes Russia-Turkey axis in Syria" (Bhadrakumar). More very late - hail Mary late, if the Khazars believed in Mary, that bitch - Yinonizing attempts by the neocons, complete with no-fly zone. Tel Aviv must think that Erdoğan is some kind of idiot.

As you would expect, death rates from synthetic opiates correspond, not to medical need, but to the degree of Sackler family 'pushing' to doctors (essentially by bribing them): "Opioid Deaths Overlap With Pharma’s Target Markets" (Hlavinka). "Oddly Enough, More Big Pharma Kickbacks for Docs Are Associated With More Opioid Deaths" (Watson).

"Andrew Anglin Involved in Problematic Lawsuit Situation" (Knickerbocker). Anglin made the mistake he constantly warns his readers not to make.

"REVEALED: Amnesty International’s Historic Links to US & UK Intelligence Agencies" (Rubenstein). From its beginning, just another British intelligence operation, another part of the long line leading to the Integrity Initiative and the White Helmets.

"Buzzfeed, Question Time & the purpose of Fake News" (Knightly). I think it is simpler than the big conspiracy (the big conspiracy does explain the Guardian). Buzzfeed, in its very name, is a clickbait scheme (ironically, exactly what the Russians were up to when they were sending out silly memes before the last election). They are all about the clicks, and they got the clicks. Who cares about reputation?

"The U.S. Government Has Amassed Terabytes of Internal WikiLeaks Data" (Best). They might learn something about themselves! Carrying this stuff through airports seems awfully dumb to me.

"War on BDS: How AIPAC-Israel Agenda became USG Priority" (Baroud). A revealing inter-Khazar fight. The machers are furious that the lite Zionists are using BDS to consolidate Khazar thieving to date, while giving up on all the rest of the Zionist Empire that has yet to be stolen. They are so mad they are demonstrating the obscene degree of control they have over American politicians with obviously unconstitutional efforts to block one particular type of speech.

Sarsour remains a problem they continue to attack by kevinbaconing her (with Farrakahn): "Women's March doesn’t represent Jews – Laura Loomer shouts after crashing NYC event". The irony of course is that all these marches in recent American history have been led and organized solely by Khazars for what amounts to Khazar supremacist purposes (which isn't to say there have not been good results from them). We're so indoctrinated we don't even ask the obvious question of why a woman's march should represent Jews!

"Why is Japan So Bitter About Unstoppable Rise of China" (Vltchek). There is a meme that has been around for years that Japan is right on the verge of completely collapsing, generally connected to its refusal to give up its genetic homogeneity.

The Remainer conspiracy: "Second Referendum: Beware The Deception Around A "No Deal" Brexit" (Guinness). The only thing that is stopping them is the fear that the people are on to the trick, and will deliver an even greater Leave vote the next time, as a big fuck you to the establishment. That would really put them in a pickle.

"Coincidence? - Chief Nurse Of British Army Was First To Arrive At Novichoked Skripal Scene" (Moon). Good stuff, but there is no evidence that the agent used could have killed him, or was intended to kill him, so they weren't trying to get rid of him. It is remarkable that it was the army nurse herself who went out of her way to obtain a public award for her daughter, hardly likely if she was part of the conspiracy (or did she think nobody would put the pieces together?). You almost have to wonder if British intelligence had her reveal herself to send another message to the Russians - we did this, and can and will do it again, and the only reason the victims are alive is that we sent an expert to monitor the scene.

"BRITISH GOVERNMENT DEMOLISHES SKRIPAL HOUSE, ROOF FALLS IN ON THERESA MAY AS EVIDENCE GROWS THAT SERGEI SKRIPAL POISONED HIMSELF BY ACCIDENT" (Helmer). The MI6 Players present a little dinner theater. That door handle ought to be in a museum somewhere (along with the part of the plane that Rumsfeld has carted off as a trophy on 9/11, Atta's passport, and the Magic Bullet).

The Khazars want to collect your deets, goyim, and have a trick to get you to let them (it's the human body form of phishing): tweet (Tim Maughan):

"This is hilarious. @CBCNews
got identical twins to try out leading DNA tests. Very different
results between brands. Even worse? 23andMe gave different results for
*each twin* Their explanation? “It’s the algorithm”"

Saturday, January 19, 2019

The latest Cohen 'collusion;' story was bullshit of the highest order, and obvious from the get-go (the original title of the article before Mueller took the amazing step of refuting it): "Skeptics Shred BuzzFeed Over Trump Tower Scoop; Journo Admits He Hasn't Seen Evidence" (Durden) (Leopold in particular has an almostunbelievablereputation for this kind of thing - actually, not at all unbelievable given the standards of 'journalism' these days - for a guy who always seems to find employment as a 'journalist'). "LOL: Bob Mueller’s Special Counsel Office Says Buzzfeed Article On Trump Directing Jew Cohen to Lie is an Inaccurate Hoax" (Rogers). Marshall had already built a mighty fortress on this nonsense, so it must be a bit of a disappointment: "Team Mueller Calls Into Question Buzzfeed Report" (Kurtz).

Duh!: "Adelson has ‘more influence’ than Pompeo, ‘controlling’ State Dep’t on Israel, says ‘NYT’ columnist Egan" (Weiss). Striking to see it in the JYT (must be macher infighting, as the truth is always otherwise banned in the JYT).

As predicted, from Mr. Compromised: "Syria: In the History of Bad Excuses, This One’s Top-Tier" (Knapp):

"And this is the best they can come up with? If the troops don’t stay in Syria, they can’t keep getting killed in Syria? Wow, that really shows Trump, doesn’t it?"

"Triumph of Conventional Wisdom: AP Expunges Iran/Contra Pardons from Barr’s Record" (Husseini). Barr has special skillz (obviously, the AP has no interest whatsoever in censoring facts to protect Trump - they are protecting the newly-sainted Bush crime family and the general sleaziness of Washington politics):

"A president facing a major scandal, just as the highest-profile trial is about to begin, pardons the indicted or convicted officials around him to effectively stop the investigation that’s closing in on his own illegal conduct.

Trump soon? We’ll see. But this actually describes what President George H.W. Bush did in 1992."

"The annual cost of deploying U.S. military personnel overseas, as well as maintaining and running those foreign bases, tops out at an estimated $150 billion annually, according to the Overseas Bases Realignment and Closure Coalition. The price tag for the outposts alone adds up to about one-third of that total. “U.S. bases abroad cost upwards of $50 billion per year to build and maintain, which is money that could be used to address pressing needs at home in education, health care, housing, and infrastructure,” Vine points out."

"Taibbi: Has The Government Legalized Secret Defense Spending?" (Taibbi). The 'black books' aren't quite black enough to hide the boondoggles.

"Things Congress Could Do for Peace, From Easiest to Hardest" (Swanson). There is no hope for any of these things from an utterly beshekeled Congress.

It is often difficult to get over the idea that the US is intentionally weakening itself to benefit its competitors: "US Blunders have made Russia the Global Trade Pivot" (Maavak):

"Ultimately, industries in Asia and Europe will seek safer transit routes
for their products. The inference here is inevitable: the greatest
logistical undertaking in history – China’s Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) – will be highly dependent on Russian security umbrella,
particularly in Central Asia. Russia also offers an alternative transit
option via the Northern Sea Route, thereby avoiding any potential pan-Turkic ructions in Central Asia in the future."

'Karl' Carlson is on a roll: "When Did Democrats Become the Party of Bill Kristol and Neocon Hacks?". The end of NATO is starting to become a mainstream position in some parts of the Republican Party.

"Commie Jew Huffington Post Cites “Conservative” Kike Jennifer Rubin Attacking Trump" (Anglin). The Khazars have divided themselves into the goyishe political groupings for convenience and in order to pass as normies, but they really only care about Khazar supremacism.

"U.S. House Passes Bill to Nominate “Anti-Semitism” Head to Monitor Criticism of Israel" (Weir). 411-1, with Amash the one non-traitor. This will be dismissed as an irrelevant government staffing issue, but the implications are deeply troubling as speech over Zionist wrongdoing is surely going to be further criminalized.

"Morris still criticizes Prime Minister Netanyahu for
“his unwillingness to talk to the Palestinians about a territorial
compromise” and that “he doesn’t put anything on the table that will
draw them into discussions”.

But why “discussions”, if Morris doesn’t believe in it anyway? Morris explains:

Even if territorial compromise with the
Palestinians is not realistic in this generation, as was also the case
earlier, you have to play the diplomatic game – even if you know it
won’t lead anywhere – in order to retain the West’s sympathy. You have
to look like you’re pursuing peace, even if you’re not.

Let’s pause here – this is really some admission.
Morris says that the only point of the “diplomatic game” is to keep up
an appearance, in order to “retain the West’s sympathy”. Yes, you heard
it here. The ‘peace process’ serves no other function than that of a
“diplomatic game”. Here Morris echoes former Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir,
who in the very beginning of the famous ‘peace process’ in Madrid in
1991, coined the ‘teaspoon policy’: endless negotiating sessions at
which countless teaspoons amounting to mountains of sugar would be
stirred into oceans of tea and coffee, but no agreement would ever be
reached."

"Justin Trudeau’s pack of lies about BDS" (Abunimah). Another guy who can't sneak up to you in the dark due to all the shekels rattling in his pockets.

"The multiple levels of hypocrisy behind Canada’s claim that it is humane and adhering to the rule of law while China is “politically motivated,” in the current stand-off, begs the question as to Ottawa’s real motives. Coming alongside Chrystia Freeland’s rabid anti-communist campaign in Venezuala and Armenia (she has, for example, recently condemned Maduro as an illegitimate “dictator”); it might make sense that the extradition of Meng is part of a larger conspiracy amongst elements of the Western elite to stage a Cold War II, with China playing the part of the Soviet Union.

If this is true, we might ask whether Prime Minister Trudeau is entirely comfortable with the direction his Foreign Minister is taking Canadian foreign policy. I doubt it would sit well with his father who famously befriended Mao and Castro, and who, it has recently been revealed, was himself under surveillance by the RCMP because of his leftist sympathies."

"When
Alexandria took the mic, she talked about the effect of the government
shut down on the innocent feds, and she relied on an anecdote about…
wait for it… an Arab who came to America to go to flight school in New
York."

Friday, January 18, 2019

"This is the political equivalent of Jews spraying swastikas on gravestones or making hoax bomb threats. One set of Jews creates a problem; another set of Jews cashes in from complaining about it. Whatcha doin’ pollster?"

I first read about this splendid situation in the Greenwald tweet: "Somalian Congressperson Calls Out Lindsey Graham for Sucking Dick, Right-Wing Media Calls Her a Bigot" (Anglin). "Congresswoman Struggles To Explain Provocative Tweet Claiming Lindsey Graham "Compromised"" (Durden). What do you do when a powerful politician - he arguably just got some Americans killed due to the usual kowtowing to his Zionist handlers in slowing the Trump withdrawal, either in the delay in extraction, or in setting up the false-flag opportunity for the 'ISIS' attack that will be used as the excuse to never withdraw - is being so obviously blackmailed into taking treasonous political positions? This blackmail has being going on for years, is extremely dangerous, and, one way or another, has to stop. Note how identity politics is employed immediately to try to protect the blackmail operation.

"When Purdue Pharma started selling its prescription opioid painkiller OxyContin in 1996, Dr. Richard Sackler asked people gathered for the launch party to envision natural disasters like an earthquake, a hurricane, or a blizzard. The debut of OxyContin, said Sackler — a member of the family that started and controls the company and then a company executive — “will be followed by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition.”

Five years later, as questions were raised about the risk of addiction and overdoses that came with taking OxyContin and opioid medications, Sackler outlined a strategy that critics have long accused the company of unleashing: divert the blame onto others, particularly the people who became addicted to opioids themselves.

“We have to hammer on the abusers in every way possible,” Sackler wrote in an email in February 2001. “They are the culprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals.”"

This connects directly to the ubiquitous Khazar hatred of the goyim.

"tl;dr, it's Falun Gong evangelism" (MetaFilter). In case you see them politely but aggressively hustling tickets at your local mall, and wonder how so much effort at marketing is economically sustainable.

"Trump vs. the Tyranny of Experts" (Devlin). Another possible non right-left way of looking at the world.

"Justin Trumpdeau continues to stand against nonviolent solidarity and civic action to free Palestinians from the brutal Israeli occupation and apartheid that his government supports. He wants Palestinians to die from Israeli sniper bullets without making a fuss."

The combo of Freeland's evil incompetence and Trudeau's stupidity has reached the point of literally getting Canadians killed: "Freeland calls China’s behaviour ‘a threat to all countries’ as federal cabinet meets with senior ambassadors" (Curry). "Why is Canada so hot under the collar about Venezuela?" (Walkom, btw, the most consistently excellent Canadian columnist, though he seems to have fallen for nonsense criticisms of the last Venezuelan election). "The Tears of Justin Trudeau" (Orphan).

She showed up at a politically opportune time in Canada (she got the traditional Canadian Nazi personal welcome that every single refugee enjoys!), simultaneously poking the Saudis in the eye - Freeland's bizarre and unnecessary fight with them continues - and changing the subject from the extreme and dangerous incompetence demonstrated by the Huawei executive arrest: "Did Saudi teen Rahaf Mohammed jump the queue with her speedy resettlement to Canada?" (Keung).

"As far as the Canadian claims that Schellenberg is innocent and was just randomly nabbed by the Chinese – this is clearly false. The Chinese do not have any policy of randomly imprisoning foreigners on false charges – unlike Canada, which kidnaps Chinese people and accuses them of bizarre Iran-related hoaxes." You have to love the judge telling him in his 2012 sentencing - for drug trafficking! - that he was lucky to be living in Canada!

"‘NATO Has Outlived Its Usefulness & Should Go Into Dustbin of History’ – Scholar". "Top 10 Reasons Not To Love NATO" (Swanson). "Trump Aides "Scrambled" After He Raised Leaving NATO Altogether "Several Times"" (Durden). NATO is now just a mobile Zionist proxy army, and its baffling continued existence just makes everybody less safe, now, in particular, Europeans. Armies without logical purpose tend to make their own purposes.

"Are U.S. Newspapers Biased Against Palestinians? Analysis" (Abusalim). Ha! Is this a rhetorical question? Does a bear shit in the woods? (((Newspapers))), goyim.

"Final Steps in Syria's Successful Struggle for Peace and Sovereignty" (Pieraccini). "Is an al-Qaeda Front dominating 3 Million People in North Syria?" "Talk of Western intervention in the Black Sea is pure fantasy" (Escobar).

"Ray McGovern: Russia-gate Evidence, Please" (McGovern). Comey tried to pull a Hoover on Trump and blackmail Trump with the dossier, which appears to be the actual reason for Comey's firing. Lest we forget: "On February 6, 2018, The Washington Postreported
that that part of the dossier was written Cody Shearer, a long-time
Clinton operative and passed it along to Steele. Shearer ignored a
request for comment from Consortium News. [Shearer had been a Consortium advisory board member who was asked to resign and left the board.]"

"This primary is going to be an absolute bloodbath of historic proportions".

"And for the media, who discovered via “fact-checking” Trump exaggerated the terrorist threat on our southern border, where were you when every facet of American foreign and domestic policy was driven by two administrations using this same lie?" "Every 18 months the US government hands over to Israel enough money to build Trump’s wall".

"During my time in the US, I survived by house painting and house cleaning, mostly, then after I was published, I made money by giving talks and an occasional teaching gig. Book royalty income has been negligible. My wife and I lived minimally, and we owned no house, car or even a credit card. My traveling was mostly done through other people’s money, as when I was invited by Jonathan Revusky to spend a month in France and Spain last year. My recent trip to Japan was paid for by the Japanese publisher of my Postcards from the End of America. My last decade in the US, I depended on PayPal donations to survive, as my wife made less than minimum wage selling knock off purses in Philly. As my writing touched more taboo subjects, all the teaching and reading invitations dried up, so my wife insisted that we move back to Vietnam, a wise decision, as we’re getting older with nothing to our names."

and:

"Recently, I was accused of being a racist, homophobe, transphobe,
anti-Semite and advocate for the genocide of the Jews, so my
500-page-plus Collected Poems, about to be sent to the printer, has been
postponed indefinitely and likely canceled, since its publisher is a
professor, thus terrified of losing his soft job. My Obscured Americans
book was under consideration at Seven Stories Press, but I’d bet that
it’s canned also, since Seven Stories Press was recently forced to
distance itself from me on Twitter.In many ways, I’m glad that my divorce from the American literary
scene has become clear and final, with each side’s position crystal
clear, for I believe I will be vindicated down the line. We’ll see who’s
moral and principled, and who are the dishonest and cowardly
collaborators with the mass murdering status quo.
I talked about some of these issues when I was interviewed by Kevin Barrett recently."

"Local police told the Chronicle Herald that
al-Zoabi's passport was given as collateral when the 28-year-old student
posted his $37,500 bail in cash, a hefty sum provided by the Saudi
Arabian embassy.

"It should be impossible (for him to leave the country or enter without a passport) unless Saudi Arabia furnished him with a Saudi travel document," Lee Cohen, a Halifax-based immigration lawyer, told the Chronicle Herald.
"They have done this before."
Asked by the paper whether he was still in Canada,
al-Zoabi said "probably not … I can't tell you that", adding that he
wouldn't come back for the trial because he feared they might be
"unfair".
"I can't respect that," he said of the warrant and charges.
"Everybody's against me just because I'm a (racial expletive) and
foreign student despite the fact that we boosted so much money to that
island of Canada.""

Thursday, January 17, 2019

"According to Solomon's sources - which have proven impeccable, the
former #4 Department of Justice (DOJ) official, Bruce Ohr - who had extensive contact with Steele, briefed "both senior FBI and DOJ officials in summer 2016 about Christopher Steele's Russia dossier, explicitly
cautioning that the British intelligence operative's work was
opposition research connected to Hillary Clinton's campaign and might be
biased."

Ohr’s activities, chronicled in handwritten notes and congressional testimony I gleaned from sources, provide the most damning evidence to date that FBI
and DOJ officials may have misled federal judges in October 2016 in
their zeal to obtain the warrant targeting Trump adviser Carter Page
just weeks before Election Day. -The Hill

Ohr's activities also contradict a key argument made by House Democrats in their attempts to downplay the significance of the Steele Dossier;
that the FBI claimed it was "unaware of any derogatory information"
about Steele, and that the former MI6 operative was "never advised ...
as to the motivation behind the research." The FBI further "speculates"
that those who hired Steele were "likely looking for information to
discredit" Trump's campaing.There was no "speculation" going on by the FBI. Thanks to Ohr's warning, they absolutely knew about Steele's bias against Trump while working for a Clinton-funded project to gather harmful opposition research on him.

Ohr had firsthand knowledge about the motive and the client: He had just met with Steele on July 30, 2016, and Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS, the same firm employing Steele.
“I certainly told the FBI that Fusion GPS was working with, doing opposition research on Donald Trump,” Ohr told congressional investigators, adding that he warned the FBI that Steele expressed bias during their conversations.
“I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected,” he added. “So, yes, of course I provided that to the FBI.” -The Hill

When lawmakers pressed Ohr as to why he would volunteer that
information to the FBI, he answered "In case there might be any kind of
bias or anything like that," adding later "So when I provided it to the
FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information, I don’t know
how reliable it is. You’re going to have to check it out and be aware."
Ohr also says he told the FBI that his wife and Steele were working
for Fusion GPS - the same firm hired by the Clinton campaign through
intermediary law firm Perkins Coie, and that they were conduction
Trump-Russia research at the behest of Clinton's camp."

"Impeachment: An Argument" (concentration camp guard). Pushing impeachment the second Trump decided to end a War For The Jews. Trump has to go due to the extreme danger of the Goyim Knowing that fighting these wars isn't in the American national interest, and that it is actually extremely easy to stop fighting them. Note that the argument - by, naturally, an 'American' called Yoni Appelbaum - isn't that the impeachment will succeed in removing Trump, but that it will curtail his actions (presumably, in particular, his holocaustian predilection for peacemongering).

"A Turkish 'Security Zone' In Northeast Syria Is A Bad Idea" (Moon). The Turkish tanks are massed at the border, waiting. What are they waiting for? They are waiting for the Kurds to come to their senses and make a deal with the Syrian government, a deal that would protect legitimate Turkish security interests and avoid the huge mess that any kind of Turkish occupation would entail. I GUARANTEE you that the Kurdish leaders are so shekeled they can't make the only obvious move, and the Kurdish people are eventually going to have to fix this problem, or, literally, die.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

"Return of the Neocons!" (Taibbi). Will the 'anti-Semitism' never stop?:

"Neoconservatives, the architects of the War on Terror, are the political version of Jason in Friday the 13th: You can never bank on them being completely dead. They just hide under a log until the next funder appears."

"The Memo That Helped Kill a Half Million People in Syria" (Lazare). Written by (((James Rubin))), who just got a divorce from Christiane Amanpour. "Personnel note: Foreign policy pro James P. Rubin joins Ballard Partners". Republican lobbyists (mostly), but there is no partisan politics when it comes to killing people and stealing their land. "Trump-Tied Florida Lobbying Firm Made $5.2 Million Windfall Since the Election" (Iannelli).

"How a NeoCon-Backed “Fact Checker” Plans to Wage War on Independent Media" (Webb).

"Entering a Major Regional Re-set – The Syria Outcome Will Haunt Those Who Started This War" (Crooke):

". . . the regional fault-line has moved on: It is no longer so much Iran. GCC States have a new agenda, and are now far more concerned to contain Turkey, and to put a halt to Turkish influence spreading throughout the Levant. GCC states fear that President Erdogan, given the emotional and psychological wave of antipathy unleashed by the Khashoggi murder, may be mobilising newly re-energised Muslim Brotherhood, Gulf networks. The aim being to leverage present Gulf economic woes, and the general hollowing out of any broader GCC ‘vision’, in order to undercut the rigid Gulf ‘Arab system’ (tribal monarchy). The Brotherhood favours a soft Islamist reform of the Gulf monarchies – along lines, such as that once advocated by Jamal Khashoggi ."

"Why Are the Media So Eager to Declare Trump’s Syria Withdrawal Dead?" (Porter). Classic Khazar media manipulation is to assert that what they want is actually a fact which has already occurred (or, in this case, hasn't occurred, and isn't going to occur), so you better get used to it goyim and set your policies around the Khazar reality. They get away with this as nobody in the (((media))) will point it out, but it can lead to some striking inconsistencies for anybody with a memory.

"Bellingcat activist fails to ban blogger who exposed his ties to UK propaganda outfit on Twitter". We're starting to see a Streisand Effect from the efforts of the guilty to get the 'Integrity' genie back in the bottle.

"From Baghdad to Finland and All Across the World: What’s the US Up To?" (Sillitoe):

"The database displaying US embassy procurements around the world shows that tons of cargo are being distributed to Helsinki and other US embassies via regular airfreight cargo deliveries from Baghdad.

Twelve consignments, each logged at 5000 kilograms are recorded as sent to Helsinki and 23 other West European US embassies – an average of 2500 kilograms per US embassy.

The reason for such a vast volume of embassy deliveries from Baghdad is as yet unknown but this latest disclosure follows Wikileaks news that the US Consulate in Frankfurt was a purchase and postal centre for distributing spy equipment to other US embassies worldwide. Concerns are now raised that the US Embassy in Baghdad is also being used as a main distribution centre for secret operations.

In addition to Finland and Western Europe, the Wikileaks database shows that the US embassy in Baghdad disseminates hundreds of tons worldwide, with more than 300,000 kilograms recorded as being delivered Stateside alone.

Incoming diplomatic mail between embassies receives customs clearance and is automatically classified as a US government shipment.

The 80 page order list also details massive movements of road and air freight between Basra in the south of Iraq and Erbil in the north. No indication of the cargo contents are provided but the order sheets reveal convoys of trucks and vehicles were hired by Baghdad’s US embassy for the mysterious shipments."

"The ultimate irony is that any aid to Israel is illegal in light of the fact that it has violated the Symington and Glenn amendments to the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act due
to its undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal and its refusal to sign the
Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Both Congress and the White House have
chosen to ignore that complication, one more demonstration of Jewish
power in the United States."

"NSC Swears US policy on Israel’s Nukes Is Legit" (Smith). The extreme gyrations over something that everybody knows no doubt relates to the issue of money to Israel.

The cable shows how closely Obama officials were working with alleged war criminals to counter Israel’s bad press and help Israel “tell its story” and show the “lessons learned” from the massacre.

“It shows how vulnerable Israel can be to public opinion,” Norman Finkelstein, the author of Gaza: An Inquest into its Martyrdom, writes to me. “It’s not been noticed that Israel ceased using white phosphorus after Cast Lead because of the bad p.r… They do worry about public opinion. That’s why I’m skeptical when people say, ‘Israel can do whatever it wants.’ Not true.”

Finkelstein also notes the role of an Obama aide as a general-whisperer: Michael Posner, then assistant secretary for democracy, human rights, and labor.

“[I]t’s telling that instead of advocating the indictment of Israel for its war crimes, as one might expect of the founder and president of Lawyers Committee for Human Rights [later Human Rights First], Posner counsels Israel how to evade prosecution.”

Indeed, throughout the cable, Israeli generals admit that mistakes were made and promise that there will be consequences. The American officials urge the Israelis to do independent investigations so as to salvage the country’s reputation. But there’s been nothing to show for that. Israel indicted three soldiers in connection with the massacre, and the longest sentence was for a soldier who stole a Palestinian’s credit card."

"The WSWS drew attention to a column in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz on December 31, by the Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard, who warned:

“We have to face reality. We are witnessing the flourishing of a Jewish Ku Klux Klan movement. Like its American counterpart, the Jewish version also drinks from the polluted springs of religious fanaticism and separatism, only replacing the Christian iconography with its Jewish equivalent. Like white racism’s modus operandi, this Jewish racism is also based on fear mongering and violence against its equivalent of Blacks—the Palestinians.”"

"Pro-Israel groups are trying to split the Women’s March with a Zionist alternative" (Gupta). One of the most striking things about the Khazars is the amount of disruption they will cause just to get one relatively minor PR goal accomplished, in this case the removal of an overly prominent Palestinian-American, Sarsour, from a position of influence. It is part of the extreme anti-gentilism and the fact they regard all goyim as farm animals.

"Israel’s Money Man Sheldon Adelson Gets USA to ban ALL online gambling"(Punish). Is this second prize after losing out on WWIII?

"Although the British parliament in 2015 did not allow British soldiers to be deployed in Syria out of fears of inevitable losses, an ever growing number of reports would suggest that British boots actually on the ground and in fairly large numbers.

According to the Sunday Express, a total of 120 members belonging to the elite SAS regiment 22 are currently operating in the war-torn country, covertly dressed in black and flying ISIS flags, engaged in what’s called Operation Shader – that is attacking Syrian targets on the pretext of combating ISIS.

. . .

Last year, a total of two hundred British and American “advisers” and “instructors” of the Syrian opposition forces found themselves trapped in Idlib. The United States and Britain would frantically try to force Turkey or Russia to help them evacuate these soldiers, but then London refused to accept Moscow’s help as those two hundred instructors were capable of telling rather unpleasant stories on the nature of their deployment in Syria. Then, London would urge Ankara to evacuate them to the American Incirlik air base in Turkey, but this request was apparently turned down. It’s possible that those troops were in possession of chemical weapons, as shortly before that incident Russia would warn the world about the possibility of yet another false flag attack with chemical weapons being staged in Syria with the assistance of the so-called White Helmets. Consequently, various media sources got their hands on the list of names of British chemical weapons experts blocked in Idlib. That is why it is safe to assume that among the reasons why Britain would turn down Russia’s help was the military specialty of some of those “advisors”, as it could reveal that the UK was fully complicit in stage false-flag chemical attacks.

It’s curious that in spite of the outright Russophobic rhetorics in the Western media, the United States and Britain would repeatedly turn to Russia for assistance in situations when their troops got themselves in a difficult situations. In particular, such an appeal was made in December 2016, when Freenations reported that 230 American instructors and 54 British military personnel were trapped by ISIS militants in Aleppo.

On March 29, 2018, an unspecified number of American and British deceased in northern Syria, according to various reports. On January 5, 2019, as a result of a missile attack launched by ISIS in the city of Deir ez-Zor, two British special forces officers received grave injuries, with of them dying later on. The Guardian newspaper noted that the incident occurred against at the time when Donald Trump stated that ISIS was destroyed and therefore there was no sense in keeping the US military contingent in Syria.

And four days after that, five more British servicemen were killed in yet another missile attack launched by ISIS, with two more receiving severe injuries. Reportedly, a group of British special forces soldiers was fired upon by radical militants from American TOW anti-tank systems and heavy machine guns. Simply put, UK commandos showed carelessness on the battlefield and got themselves ambushed. Former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, claims that the weapons used in this attack were supplied by the United States in accordance with the support program of the so-called Syrian moderate opposition back in 2015 and was later sold to ISIS militants. This statement was published by such British newspapers as Guardian, Telegraph and Morning Star. The constant supply of weapons to the Syrian militants was a part of a secret CIA operation launched in 2013."

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

The Clarification: "As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans" (Greenwald). Worth reading at the same time: "Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon and Progressive Alliance to Destroy Donald Trump" (Giraldi): "the Omidyar-Kristol connection".

I was going to link to an essential Daily Stormer meme on this very issue, only to find it is down again. Perhaps about this? (you'll have to use Tor to see it): "A Very Jewish Coup: The Plot to Stop Brexit" (Diversity Macht Frei).

"Where is Jeffrey Goldberg?" (Hirsch). Here: "50 Moments That Define an Improbable Presidency". With the withdrawal from Syria, he's simply gone full Never Trumper.

"The War on Terror's Total Cost: $5,900,000,000,000" (DePetris). Worth it for a Zionist Empire across the Middle East! I'm always amazed that Assholians amassed the largest pile of wealth in human history and managed to squander themselves into a third world country with a few years of beshekeling. Commenter wildjew righteously asks: "Is this a Charles Lindbergh, America First website or is it just the author of this piece?"

Anti-war, wait, I've got some identity politics crap to distract you!: "Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy". Note that these are positions she took as a teenager (!), she's since changed her position and apologized for things she said, and the real complaint is with her father. Any port in a storm when you are warmongering.

You have to love Hopsicker's old-school conspiracy swagger: "Governments, Gangsters, & the Trial of El Chapo Guzman". I could quote from it, but read the whole thing! Mexican drug cartels, the Mossad, the NSA, Cartel ownership of the NYT, you know, the usual.

"'Serial predator': L.A. writer has been sounding alarm on Ed Buck for over a year" (Fitzsimons).

Sunday, January 13, 2019

"The Sexual Subversion of Ukraine" (Jatras). It's curious they added the social engineering identity politics to the mix, an unnecessary addition which might cause the whole project to fail with conservative church-going Ukrainians.

"Crisis
in the Russian Orthodox Church: Who Will Take Over the Former Western
European Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?" (Iliadi). This is a
separate attack on the Orthodox Church, different than the one being
engineered in Ukraine.

These Nazi patches keep coming up in official Ukrainian government photos of politicians and 'militias': "Familiar symbols? Ukraine's president poses with ‘elite’ paratrooper sporting…SS insignia (PHOTOS)".

"Slovakia: Locked and Loaded for the Putin Invasion" (Butler). Mocking the US-bargain-basement-clear-out F-16s (though they are still far superior to the F-35s which the cool kids are flaunting!). Life in Freedonia.

"Georgia is not better off as a result of this US “friendship”. It has been handed around like a drunken woman in a frat house on some US campus, from “advisor” to advisor, exploter to exploiter and scheme to scheme, none of which have any relation to what the local population, in this so-called democracy, regards as it welfare."

As far as I can tell, Saakashvili-lover Brink hasn't yet been named ambassador.

"Israeli Supreme Court Refuses to Allow Discussion of Full Equal Rights & ‘State of All Its Citizens’ Bill in Knesset" (Adalah). Legislative discussion of Jewish (actually Khazar) supremacism in Israel is, naturally, forbidden, along with the 'anti-Semitic' concept of human rights.

"In June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.

It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.

The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.

In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”

Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.

Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.

In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets."

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/

"That bogus but nevertheless seemingly eternal bond is essentially the point from which a December 26th op-ed in The New York Times departs. The piece is by one of the Times’ resident opinion writers Bret Stephens and is entitled Donald Trump is Bad for Israel.

Stephens
gets to the point rather quickly, claiming that “The president has
abruptly undermined Israel’s security following a phone call with an
Islamist strongman in Turkey. So much for the idea, common on the right,
that this is the most pro-Israel administration ever. I write this as
someone who supported Trump moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and who praised his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal as courageous and correct.
I also would have opposed the president’s decision to remove U.S.
forces from Syria under nearly any circumstances. Contrary to the invidious myth
that neoconservatives always put Israel first, the reasons for staying
in Syria have everything to do with core U.S. interests. Among them:
Keeping ISIS beaten, keeping faith with the Kurds, maintaining leverage
in Syria and preventing Russia and Iran from consolidating their grip on
the Levant.”

The
beauty of Stephens overwrought prose is that the careful reader might
realize from the git-go that the argument being promoted makes no sense.
Bret has a big heart for the Kurds but the Palestinians are invisible
in his piece while his knowledge of other developments in the Middle
East is superficial. First of all, the phone call with Turkey’s
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had nothing to do with “undermining
Israel’s security.” It concerned the northern border of Syria, which
Turkey shares, and arrangements for working with the Kurds, which is a
vital interest for both Ankara and Washington. And it might be added
that from a U.S. national security point of view Turkey is an essential
partner for the United States in the region while Israel is not, no
matter what it pretends to be.

Stephens
then goes on to demonstrate what he claims to be a libel, that for him
and other neocons Israel always comes first, an odd assertion given the
fact that he spends 80% of his article discussing what is or isn’t good
for Israel. He supports the U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem, the end of
the nuclear agreement with Iran, both of which were applauded in Israel
but which are extremely damaging to American interests. He attacks the
planned withdrawal from Syria because it is a “core interest” for the
U.S., which is complete nonsense.

Contrary
to Stephens’ no evidence assertion, Russia and Iran have neither the
resources nor the desire to “consolidate[e] their grip on the Levant”
while it is the United States has no right and no real interest to
“maintain leverage” on Syria by invading and occupying the country. But,
of course, invading and occupying are practices that Israel is good at,
so Stephens’ brain fart on the issue can perhaps be attributed to
confusion over whose bad policies he was defending. Stephens also
demonstrate confusion over his insistence that the U.S. must “resist
foreign aggressors…the Russians and Iranians in Syria in this decade,”
suggesting that he is unaware that both nations are providing assistance
at the request of the legitimate government in Damascus. It is the U.S.
and Israel that are the aggressors in Syria.

Stephens
then looks at the situation from the “Israeli standpoint,” which is
presumably is easy for him to do as that is how he looks at everything
given the fact that he is far more concerned about Israel’s interests
than those of the United States. Indeed, all of his opinions are based
on the assumption that U.S. policy should be supportive of a rightwing
Israeli government, that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has
recently been indicted for corruption and has called for an early
election to subvert the process.

Bret
finally comes to the point, writing that “What Israel most needs from
the U.S. today is what it needed at its birth in 1948: an America
committed to defending the liberal-international order against
totalitarian enemies, as opposed to one that conducts a purely
transactional foreign policy based on the needs of the moment or the
whims of a president.”

Stephens
then expands on what it means to be liberal-international: “It means we
should oppose militant religious fundamentalism, whether it is Wahhabis
in Riyadh or Khomeinists in Tehran or Muslim Brothers in Cairo and
Ankara. It means we should advocate human rights, civil liberties, and
democratic institutions, in that order.”

Bret
Stephens in his complaining reveals himself to be undeniably all about
Israel, but consider what he is actually saying. He claims to be against
“militant religious fundamentalism,” but isn’t that what Israeli
Zionism is all about, with more than a dash of racism and fanaticism
thrown in for good measure? One Israeli Chief Rabbi has called black
people “monkeys” while another has declared that gentiles cannot live in Israel.
Right-wing religious fundamentalist parties currently are in power
with Netanyahu and are policy making for the Israeli Government: Shas,
Jewish Home, and United Torah Judaism. None of them could be regarded as
a moderating influence on their thuggish serial financial lawbreaker
Prime Minister."

"House passes bill to force Trump to nominate “anti-semitism” head who would monitor criticism of Israel" (Weir). Shekeling remains the key feature of the current American system of government. The result is some bizarre legislative decisions. The (((media's))) job is to hide this shit from the American people as much as possible.

One of the amusing things about the Khazars is how primitive they are. I see many examples where they sabotage their own conspiracies through their inability to shake their irrational thoughts. One of the most striking is their deep and abiding hatred of schvartzes:

"On Alice Walker, Judaism, and Palestine" (Schulman) (note how the crazy hatred is covered with baseless assertions of 'anti-Semitism');

"Exclusive: Angela Davis Speaks Out on Palestine, BDS & More After Civil Rights Award Is Revoked";

"Angela Davis is latest Black target of Israel lobby" (Abunimah) (note the multiple layers of Khazar fingerprints all over this one);

The Khazars must always win: "Quantifying the Holocaust: Measuring murder rates during the Nazi genocide" (Stone):

"Genocide scholars often compare rates of recent genocides to the rate
at which the Nazi Holocaust occurred, treating the latter as a kind of
benchmark for genocide severity. As such, currently many socialscientists
maintain that the Rwandan genocide was the most “intense genocide” of
the 20th century, with a sustained period of murders occurring at a rate
three to five times more rapid than the Holocaust.
However, my work shows that while the Rwanda massacre killings were
8,000 victims per day for a 100-day period, the Holocaust was nearly
double this rate during a similar 100-day period in Operation Reinhard.
That suggests that Holocaust kill rate has been underestimated on an
order of six to 10 times. In my view, these sorts of comparisons have
limited usefulness, and clearly diminish the Holocaust’s historical
standing.
The Holocaust stands out as a demonstration of how the efficient
machinery of government was turned on people in an unparalleled way. It
transcended in its ruthlessness and systemic efficiency. This is the key
lesson of the Holocaust that I believe must not be forgotten."

"Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations — Part Two" (Joyce). Note the comments - here and following - on the conspiratorial history of Intel. For example:

"Strictly speaking, Intel was founded by two white gentiles: Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, with Grove being the third employee(he knew both from his time at Fairchild Semiconductor). Their fourth employee was the aforementioned Vadasz. In no interview I’ve read about the founding of Intel is it ever brought up that the first two employees hired just happened to be born in the same foreign country, in the same year, in the same city, were both part of the same minority, and each improbably escaped to the west and attained educations there, only to find themselves working for Intel years later. According to Wikipedia, Intel’s original funding was largely secured with the help of two Jewish investors who sat on their board: Arthur Rock and Max Palevsky. Rock’s involvement came through personal connections. Moore and Noyce had previously founded Fairchild Semiconductor with eight others, including a Jewish engineer named Eugene Kleiner. Rock was Kleiner’s father’s stockbroker and had helped them secure funding for that venture.

The Israeli connection to Intel probably merits further research. Intel’s Israeli operations are second in size only to its American ones. Unlike every other foreign country in which it has operations, Intel maintains a hiring site in Hebrew. In a related area, an Israeli company you’ve probably never heard of, called CEVA, designs digital signals processing components that are part of wireless infrastructure and dominates some market segments. The Israeli government also subsidizes basic research in cryptography and computational complexity on a scale unequaled in the world. Unlike every other country on Earth, a massive percentage(maybe as high as 50%) of their top math students are funneled into these fields."

Also references the mysterious death of Gary Kildall, the victim of theft by Bill Gates:

"An uncomfortable thought that arises is this: How did Andrew Grove succeeded to get to found Intel? That takes money, lots of it, as we know from the DOS-to-MS DOS experience: Gary Kildall invented DOS and made it operational. But, in the absence in this area of technology of copyright protection, Gates got control of it before it became a commercial proposition. And Kildall died under still-mysterious circumstances. One has to wonder whether someone was to Grove’s Intel as Gary Kildall was to Bill Gates."

"Failed Regime Change in Nicaragua. OAS and Amnesty International: Killing, Torturing Sandinistas Is OK" (Sefton). Perhaps one day there will be a human rights organization that isn't a cesspool of lies.

"Is The End Of The Brutal War In Yemen Finally At Hand?" (Porter). Congress is starting the extraction process for MbS/MbZ, who are stalled, and embarrassed, by the Houthis, and need a face-saving way to get out. It's tough to explain when you've spent billions of dollars on what was supposed to be a cake-walk of a war, and you end up losing (bonus, your countries are actually now less secure than they were before).

A powerful new option for the asymmetrical warriors (who, btw, were
supposed to have been wiped out, with ease, months ago by the dynamic
duo of MbZ/MbS and their crack fighting team): "Explained: How Yemen's rebels increasingly deploy drones".

"Peak
Oil was and is an invention of certain financial circles along with Big
Oil to justify among other things ultra-high prices for their oil. The
peak oil theory they promoted to justify the high prices, hearkened back
to the 1950’s and an eccentric oil geologist with Shell Oil in Houston
named King Hubbard.

While working for Shell Oil in
Texas, Marion King Hubbert, or King, as he preferred to be known, was
asked to deliver a paper to the annual meeting of the American Petroleum
Institute in 1956, an event that would become one of the most fateful
examples of scientific fabrication in the modern era.

Hubbert
posited all of his 1956 conclusions, including that the US would reach
oil peak in 1970, on the unproven assumption that oil was a fossil fuel,
a biological compound produced from dead dinosaur detritus, algae or
other life forms originating some 500 million years back. Hubbert
accepted the fossil theory without question, and made no evident
attempts to scientifically validate such an essential and fundamental
part of his argument. He merely asserted ‘fossil origins of oil’ as
Gospel Truth and began to build a new ideology around it, a
neo-Malthusian ideology of austerity in the face of looming oil
scarcity. He claimed oil fields obeyed the Gaussian bell curve, itself
an arbitrary heurism.

For the giant British and
American oil companies and the major banks backing them, the myth of
scarcity was necessary if they were to be able to control the
availability and price of petroleum as the lifeline of the world
economy. The scarcity myth was to be a key element of Anglo-American
geopolitical power for more than a century.
. . .
Even
before this major new discovery of shale oil and gas in the
Texas-Arizona region around the Permian Basin, the US, including
estimated shale oil, was estimated the world’s largest oil reserve.
According to a July 2018 study by Rystad Energy, a Norwegian
consultancy, the U.S. holds 264 billion barrels of oil, more than half
of which is located in shale. That total exceeds the 256 billion barrels
found in Russia, and the 212 billion barrels located in Saudi Arabia.

If
the new USGS estimates are included, the US total oil reserves would be
well over 310 billion barrels. King Hubbert’s prediction of USA peak
oil in 1970 turns out to have been nonsense. What happened in 1970 was
that Big Oil manipulated a shift to the ultra-cheap oil of the Middle
East and away from domestic USA oil drilling. For them the peak oil
argument was a useful political foil that had huge geopolitical
consequences for US Middle East policies after 1970. The new discoveries
in Texas and Arizona insure that the more rapid depletion of shale oil
deposits compared with conventional ones will not spell an early
exhaustion of US oil production.

This all has
significant geopolitical implications as the US today has emerged in
recent years to become the world’s largest producer of oil, ahead of
both Russia and Saudi Arabia. This could also explain why the US
President recently felt able to order a US troop withdrawal from Syria.
There is a vast geopolitical shift underway in the last few years."

"I find it inconceivable the that UN or its sub-organizations take large amounts of Saudi money to prevent a famine that the Saudis willingly cause in the first place. The UN should reject such bribery. To then threaten the starving side of the conflict to withhold aid over distribution problems is reckless.

WFP Director David Beasley, a former governor of South Carolina nominated for the WFP job by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, should be suspended from his job. His partisan behavior is exactly the reason why the Houthi can not and will not give the UN or any of its organizations full control over Hodeidah. It is the only port through which they can receive food supplies for the people living in their area. If UN organizations that are obviously influenced by Saudi money and issues partisan threats get control over the port, the siege on the Houthi areas would be complete.

Sooner or later they would have to concede their defeat. By then millions more would have died."

"The Mediterranean Pipeline Wars Are Heating Up" (Katona). Turkey is throwing a spanner into a lot of plans, in this case all connected to Khazar plans to move stolen gas to Europe.

"Birthers Are Back And Taking Aim At Kamala Harris" (Steve M.). The whole birther thing started with supporters of Killary (various 'rebuttals' are surprisinglyweak, and involve strenuous use of straw men, as they gather significant evidence and then just outright deny it proves anything).

Calm, rational analysis of whether the facts back up the 'collusion' story (in striking contrast to the daily hysteria by 'journalists' like Chait and Marshall): "Someone Finally Connected the Dots: Russiagate is Helping Trump" and "The Manafort Revelation Is Not a Smoking Gun" (Maté):

"That same creative license that makes Kilimnik part of the Russian-intelligence apparatus is now being applied to the claim that Manafort shared polling data with Kilimnik. The New York Times initially reportedthat Manafort instructed Kilimnik in the spring of 2016 to forward the polling data to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian tycoon to whom Manafort owed a reported $20 million. The Times also reported that “[m]ost of the data was public,” but that didn’t stop pundits from letting their imaginations run wild.

“Deripaska is close to Putin, and he has zero use for campaign data about a US election, other than to use it for the then on-going Russian campaign to elect Donald Trump,” wrote TPM’s Josh Marshall. “There is only on reason I can think of: to help direct the covert social-media propaganda campaign that Russian intelligence was running on Trump’s behalf,” declared The Washington Post’s Max Boot.

The fervent speculation suffered a setback when it was revealed that the polling data was not intended to be passed to Deripaska or any other wealthy Russian. The New York Times corrected its story to inform us that Manafort actually wanted the polling data sent to two Ukrainian tycoons, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov. That correction came long after viral tweets and articles from liberal outlets amplified the Times’ initial false claim about Deripaska. Most egregiously, New York magazine’s Chait doubled down on the initial error by incorrectly claiming that the Times was now reporting that Manafort’s intended recipient was “different Russian oligarchs.” For his part, Akhmetov says he “never requested nor received any polling data or any other information about the 2016 US elections” from Manafort or Kilimnik.

That two Ukrainian tycoons were confused with a Russian one reflects a broader error that has transmuted Manafort’s business dealings in Ukraine into grounds for a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Because Manafort worked for Ukraine’s Russia-aligned Party of Regions, it is widely presumed that he was doing the Kremlin’s bidding. But internal documents and court testimony underscore that Manafort tried to push his client, then–Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, to enter the European Union and turn away from Russia. As Manafort’s former partner and current special-counsel witness Rick Gates testified in August, Manafort crafted “the strategy for helping Ukraine enter the European Union,” in the lead-up to the 2013-2014 Euromaidan crisis. The aims, Manafort explained in several memos, were to “[encourage] EU integration with Ukraine” so that the latter does not “fall to Russia,” and “reinforce the key geopolitical messaging of how ‘Europe and the U.S. should not risk losing Ukraine to Russia.’” As his strategy got underway, Manafort stressed to colleagues—including Kilimnik—the importance of promoting the “constant actions taken by the Govt of Ukraine to comply with Western demands” and “the changes made to comply with the EU Association Agreement,” the very agreement that Russia opposed.

Rather than imagining it as part of some grand Trump-Russia conspiracy, there’s a more plausible explanation for why Manafort wanted public polling data to be forwarded to Ukrainian oligarchs. Manafort was heavily in debt when he joined Trump’s team. Being able to show former Ukrainian clients “that he was managing a winning candidate,” the Times noted, “would help [Manafort] collect money he claimed to be owed for his work on behalf of the Ukrainian parties.”

All of this highlights another inconvenient fact about Mueller’s case against Manafort: It is not about Russia, but about tax, bank, and lobbying violations stemming from his time in Ukraine. The Virginia judge who presided over Manafort’s first trial said the charges against him “manifestly don’t have anything to do with the [2016] campaign or with Russian collusion.” The collusion probe, the DC judge in Manafort’s second trial concurred, was “wholly irrelevant” to these charges.

The same could be argued about the entirety of Mueller’s indictments to date. Not a single Trump official has been accused of colluding with the Russian government or even of committing any crimes during the 2016 campaign. As The New York Times recently noted, “no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump’s] campaign conspired with Russia.” The latest error-ridden hoopla generated by an inadvertent disclosure from Manafort’s attorneys does nothing to change that picture. If anything, it underscores that after two years there is still no strong case for Trump-Russia collusion—and that only shoddy evidentiary standards have misled its proponents into believing otherwise."

See also, the biggest elephant in the room: "The Myth of the Russian Crime Boss, Semion Mogilevich, He's Israeli by Larry Johnson". The sheer mendacity of the ((('journalists'))) writing about the 'collusion' is nothing short of amazing, the purest distillation of chutzpah:

"So why is a Ukrainian born Jew who holds Israeli citizenship described as a "Russian mobster?" It is a deliberate fabrication to classify him as a "Russian." He is an Israeli and a Ukrainian. He is not a Russian by birth nor ethnicity."

Note the comments, including one by Lang (I think that is bang on with respect to Trump's real corruption problems, but one which neither the (((media))) or US law enforcement would touch with a million-foot pole):

"A possible implication of LJ's piece is that while Trump's "collusion" with the Russian government is as yet unproven, the possibility exists that he is compromised by past dealings with criminals connected to Israel."

What you have to expect from Counterpunch these days, a call to ruin the French protests by pigeonholing the protesters into one of the official political slots, so they can be comfortably neutralized: "Yellow Vests, Modern Junk Politics and Robespierre" (Warner).

"Gilets Jaunes SITREP" (Buzzanca). Note the comment by TMWNS on the predictable - it's Conspiracy 101! - insertion of a ((())) ringer into the 'discussion', with the archetypal distinction between the good, honest protesters, and the 'hooligans' (i.e., those who really threaten Macron/Rothschild power), who will be beaten, killed, and arrested:

". . . this police union member Michel Thooris (Cf. extract infra) appears conciliatory and very plausible. (Cf. On the right in this UFPJ (Union Française Juive pour la Paix video : https://youtu.be/jjkxTZNVrng). In fact he’s a shill for the Jewish Zionist lobby and Political Advisor – on Security – for Marine Le Pen and the Rassemblement national (ex Front National party),

Her performance during the 2017 presidential election debate was crucial in getting Emmanuel Macron elected. Police in Paris lend their premises to French Jewish terrorist organisations BETAR and Ligue de Défense Juive for paramilitary training purposes.

«For Michel Thooris, general secretary of the France Police – Policiers en colère union, who is also upwind against the measure, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the hooligans and the Yellow Vests. He denounces a certain confusion purposely made by the government: “These types of individuals, who will break down a government building’s door, are professional hooligans and not Yellow Vests. It’s easy to wear a yellow vest for a hooligan. I think it is a manipulation of the government to make the French public think that these actions are the result of the Yellow Vests. I dispute this version of the facts. I am a professional used to policing and I know very well that it was not ordinary Yellow Vests that did this and set up an operation of this magnitude. These hooligans are used to infiltrate demonstrations to engage in violence that we condemn. They take advantage of the Yellow Vest movement as they take advantage of social movements in general, May 1st or sporting events. They are detrimental to the movement, but they are not Yellow Vests at all” …»."

"Surprise Ruling Opens New Avenue for Mumia to Win New Trial on his Murder Conviction" (Lindorff). Note how somebody in the DA's office sanitized the record by removing Castille's memos from the file! "Evidence of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Innocence: Six “Lost” Mumia Case Boxes Found in District Attorney Abandoned Furniture Closet".

"Tulsi Gabbard's running in 2020 - TTG". "Yids Flip Lids Over Tulsi Gabbard Presidential Run" (Anglin). Clarifying Twitter response. (((They))) will crucify her, but it is good that she will be running on what is essentially an anti-war platform.

"Russia tamps down the Kuril hype" (Bhadrakumar). If the Russians give anything to the Japanese the Americans will build a base on it!

"Social Media Might Ban the Pakistani Map at India’s Behest" (Korybko). We see this all the time with the Israelis insisting on their imperial mappings.

"India sequesters Iran ties from US predatory strike" (Bhadrakumar). India has already done what the Euro-trash have mumbled about doing.

"You can have sex with your sources, get thrown out of one job, and rise again in the Age of Trump. Journalism is great!" (Van Buren).

"Judge Richard Goldstone Suffered for Turning His Back on Gaza, But Not as Much as the Palestinians He Betrayed" (Fisk). The murdering and land theft is just the "complex circumstances of asymmetric warfare", goyim!

"Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?" (Stevenson/Majerle). "Man accused of shooting down UN chief: ‘Sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to…’".